Quote:
Originally Posted by Zadok  Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis Quote:
Originally Posted by Zadok
So, not saved, but in heaven?  | I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post ........ | And if you were to obtain any degree of certainty as to my obtuseness would it necessarily make your arguments any more convincing? Does your role as moderator on this board include the right to label someone "stupid" just because they do not happen to share the light that you think you enjoy? |
Zadok,
If you are obtuse and really need elaboration then please read my subsequent posts that demonstrate how foolish you made yourself look in your quip making fun of the Canons of Dordt. Or would you like to demonstrate to me, from the Scriptures, that believing parents of children dying in infancy ought to be counseled to doubt the election of their children? Incidentally, it's not my moderator status that gives me the right to label but your statement that cast questions upon either your slowness or sloppiness. I hold you to the same standard I hold myself and my track record here includes multiple retractions when I say stupid things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK
Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbys believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presby does expect baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presby then just say so.  | Incidentally, Ruben was concerned that I was directing the fact that the Canons of Dordt demonstrate Pastoral wisdom and that some here lack that wisdom as being directly attributed to you Ken. That was not my intent. I sometimes write broadly and should be more direct. My statement were meant to be interepreted rhetorically and not directed at you per se.
My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I am trying to be very direct in "re-directing" ideas where people are actually trying to apply a speculative attitude toward a sentence that is Pastoral. As I demonstrated with jpechins comment, it is silly to criticize a statement that we ought not doubt the election of a child and then turn around and say we can't doubt the election of a child. | I am not criticizing anything. I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not doubt the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn expect the salvation of said infants? Your posts seem to indicate that you do not. I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Anyone???? |
Ken,
Why do you think this requires a simple answer? Why can't you accept the answer that we ought not to doubt the election of our children and operate on that basis? Why is that answer not sufficient for you.
Let me ask you this: Do you
expect the election of every man and woman of a majority status to be elect who professes faith in Christ? If you know a person who was baptized as an adult who is baptized do you
expect that they are elect?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all I'm looking for. I don't want any qualifications or explanations. I don't want any information on the denomination of the person. It doesn't matter. Yes or no: Do you expect that every baptized adult you meet is elect?